The law against incest was given to Moses. Before that, there was no law against it.

Really? How then do you read the following passage from St. Paul's epistle to the Romans?

Quote

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

-- Romans 2:14-16

Is this not a good biblical argument for what Western theologians and philosophers have dubbed "natural law"? Just because God had not yet given the Law to Moses does not mean that the peoples of Earth had no Divinely revealed law to guide them.

Quote

Seth and Cain must have married their own sisters because there was no other choice.

Only if you take a strictly literal approach to interpreting the Genesis narrative of the creation of Man, an approach that many of the Fathers did not take. (As an aside, the apparent absurdity of your argument is really one of the reasons many intellectuals don't take the Christian faith seriously, and in this case alone I actually empathize with them.)

I do not think most posts are advocating fornication. Nor denigrating monogomy and marital faithfulness.

But I think, as Christians (both Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical) we have differing views (and not between each communion, but WITHIN each communion) regarding the sexual promiscuity in the modern world, especially as regards unbelievers.

Some would preach abstinence only (preaching to the choir?); others would support teaching the virutes of abstinence for those with ears to hear, but protection for those who either don't care to hear, or those who hear but have great difficulty with their hormones; still others would maybe say, "boys will be boys" or "girls will be girls" - wink, wink (but I challenge ANY father, Christian or non-Christian to REALY say the latter, so of course it is a double standard that is patently wrong, from a paternal view, because boys can only be boys with someone else's girl!).

My personal point of view is to make the case for monogamy and virginity til marriage, both to those in the Church and those outside. But realize, as George has pointed out that most of those outside the Church and many within will cast their vote with "nature." So, protection should be a part of their educated choice in the matter.

My personal point of view is to make the case for monogamy and virginity til marriage, both to those in the Church and those outside. But realize, as George has pointed out that most of those outside the Church and many within will cast their vote with "nature." So, protection should be a part of their educated choice in the matter.

That would be like a basketball coach saying "Okay, guys, we know that using performance enhancing drugs is bad. But since we know that some of you are going to use them anyway, then we'll have a box of steroids in the locker room". Is that giving students an educated choice in the matter?

That would be like a basketball coach saying "Okay, guys, we know that using performance enhancing drugs is bad. But since we know that some of you are going to use them anyway, then we'll have a box of steroids in the locker room". Is that giving students an educated choice in the matter?

No, it wouldn't be anything like this. This is a poor metaphor.To say anything is illicit is automatically a value judgement. It is not an "objective-fact-which-anyone-can-see" that fornication is immoral or illicit. You certainly can educate people about what Christians believe about it, but you cannot force them to believe it. So what are you saying? That condoms should be banned? Do we Christians really think that's going to stop fornication? We, whose Saviour was descended from Solomon who was born from an adulterous union (Matthew 1:6)? No my friend, banning condoms is just going to make it more unsafe for people and cost lives.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I have to agree with that, actually. If you don't want your kids to be in the class, all you have to do is sign a waiver...but they WILL hear about it all anyway, so I think it better to get the facts straight rather than the twelve year old's embellished and fanciful version, ya know? It's our responsibility as parents to instill the moral attitudes we want our kids to carry with them through life.

It sounds like you dont want sex education classes, you want abstinence classes, essentially propaganda classes to prevent people from having sex. Well, as others were pointing out, this moral crusade isn't the responsibility of the education system. At some point during a sex education class you could say, 'needless to say, if you don't have sex, the risk of getting an STD, pregnant, AIDS (to a lesser extent), etc. is nominal.' That pretty much covers abstinence education. The rest of such a course would cover the biology of reproduction, perhaps the biology of disease, current medical options for those who have STD's, probability of getting said disease using various different types of birth control (and you can even say, as an aside that if you dont have sex the statistics dont apply...go figure), options if one becomes pregnant (yeah, yeah, I know, if they even mention that abortion is an option and how to go about getting one, which should be an element of any sex ed course, causes the overreaction of the fundies...the education system should provide knowledge and education, not morals), etc. In short, objective scientific knowledge be it from the fields of biology, medicine, or psychology should be presented. You would turn it into a propaganda course to impose your personal moral code on the next generation. Give them the scientific facts, let them make up their own minds.

And, for what it's worth, I actually strongly support monogamy, but not for moral or medical reasons: monogamy has proven benificial from a sociological and evolutionary perspective. It reduces sexual dimorphism and deemphasizes aggressiveness allowing more significant and benificial traits, such as intelligence, to progress evolutionarily. However, the fact that it's benificial on the evolutionary timeline does not mean that it is always benificial in every specific instance.

I am often perplexed at the light hearted attitude many Orthodox have towards fornication and adultery. I was reading an article in a magazine about the infidelity rates in the various nations throughout the world, and the "Orthodox" nations tended to be amongst the worst. I think that this is a sobering indictment of the current state of the faithful world wide. This kind of immorality would not be tolerated by the precommunist church. When I hear Orthodox trying to defend fornication I just shake my head in disbelief. It is time for the clergy to step up and say "we are Israelites! we are not like the Egyptians!". We don't do what the world does because we are Christians. I am convinced when immorality abounds in the church it spreads like a cancer. It causes others to think that sin is ok, and a light hearted attitude towards combating sin prevales.

Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!

I think what is trying to be said is 1. as Orthodox Christians, we believe fornication is wrong2. most of you pagans do not think it is wrong3. when you fornicate, therefore, use protection against STDs and bringing unwanted kids into the world4. that having been said, we still believe it to be wrong and think there is a better way, if you ever want to take the time to listen, or if you crash and burn by this lifestyle - we're here not just with judgment, but some healing grace as well.

I have to agree with that, actually. If you don't want your kids to be in the class, all you have to do is sign a waiver...but they WILL hear about it all anyway, so I think it better to get the facts straight rather than the twelve year old's embellished and fanciful version, ya know? It's our responsibility as parents to instill the moral attitudes we want our kids to carry with them through life.

Just as an FYI...the information I shared in previous posts on this thread about the sex ed curriculum from my son's school came from the teacher's mouth on parent orientation night, not from the students. I just wanted others to be aware of what is being taught in sex ed classes in the California bay area in 2007. My son will be in eighth grade next year and he will not be attending the sex ed class because of the free-love messages being promoted by the new curriculum. I will be giving him all the information and statistics not provided by the school's curriculum.